|
Presidential poll and discussion, cont.
(Note: the poll was closed as of midnight Saturday, but further comments will be posted.)
The poll and discussion, which began here, continues in this entry. The vote totals will continue to be presented in the original entry.
Hannon writes:
That voting thread is simply amazing, especially the longer comments at the end. What is communicated here feels like the heart of good thinking, in every sense of the word “good”. Now that it is 3 AM I have got through it, but I won’t say when I started. If the msm could express even a fraction of what is written here on a regular basis it would animate a lot of people.
The strangeness of this election year aside, VFR has helped mend my aversion to domestic campaign politics, at least enough to appreciate its complex relationship with broader principles, history, philosophy, etc. (the fun stuff).
Good to have two more write-in possibilities, too: Laura W. (!) and Geert Wilders.
Cindy W. writes:
I voted for McCain. While I agree completely that part of me wants to turn everything over to the left for the next four years (and yes, let them be happy for a while), it comes down to likelihood that Obama would nominate one or more leftist justices to the Supreme Court and thus cause the existential damage you speak of. Also, I am morally opposed to Obama’s tax plan, which would directly hurt the small business I work for. McCain says he wants a total freeze on ALL government spending for the next year and seems to understand the harmful effects of such a huge national debt. Also, I’m afraid that, rather than inspiring conservatives to rally and fight against the leftism that would be promoted, it would instead consign us to permanent minority status.
Charles T. writes:
McCain. Simply put, I believe we lose more with Obama as president.
Chris C. writes:
I’m voting for Bob Barr. I would prefer to vote for Baldwin, but he did not even qualify as a write-in candidate in my state (North Carolina).
Jake F. writes:
I’m so glad I read your Web site.:)
I opposed Baldwin because he’s a “truther.” Howard Sutherland has changed my mind with this comment: “A vote for Baldwin says the voter opposes Obama and McCain, and opposes both from the Right.” He’s right. A write-in vote sends a weak signal that you opposed both candidates, but not from any particular direction or because of any particular issues.
Every candidate is imperfect, and if this election were Obama vs. Baldwin, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for Baldwin; therefore, I won’t hesitate now, either. (I’m in New Jersey—I have to see if he’s even on the ballot.)
I won’t restate the obvious, but I think there are other considerations in casting a vote for Baldwin:
1. A vote for Baldwin tells the world that my vote isn’t race-focused, because if that were all that mattered, I could vote for McCain.
2. I’m probably not voting for him because I’m a truther (I haven’t looked, but I’m sure there are leftist truther candidates out there), so it’s because he’s a conservative. Even if I were a truther, I would be a right-wing truther, and it’s the right-wing part that needs to get through.
Sutherland’s post was very important for me. Change my vote to “Constitution Party—Baldwin.”
(Gintas’s post was post was originally in the other entry and I’ve moved it here.)
Gintas writes:
Rick Darby’s best case/worst case breakdowns have the look of Pascal’s Wager. Guess which one is “end up in hell”?
Here’s a little joke, given the back-and-forth writhing you’ve been going through over this: you are thinking about a “writhe-in” vote on your ballot. At least there should be a drop or two of blood on there somewhere (I’m not mocking at all, it’s been a lot of agony).
I voted Baldwin. The “truther” angle is not front-and-center with him; a committed, serious “truther” is a monomaniac who has that at the top and it drives everything else. It’s down on the list for Baldwin, and he mentions it probably because he’s asked by the committed truthers who are floating around in the third-party fringes. The things at the top of Baldwin’s list are the things at the top of our list, too.
Anna writes:
While some folks may think that the first term of Obama will energize the opposition, I think they have studied their approach very carefully, and I mean not only the folks active in the Obama campaign, but the folks behind the folks active in the Obama campaign. The squelching of opposition goes from mass media to campaign signs on a lawn and, most of all, creating, as Ed S. wrote, “the cult of personality.”
To play on an earlier comment, if Obama wins I feel I will not be as free as we are today to work on the future.
I want the opportunity to fight problems with John McCain. There is a chance I will be heard. Just looking at an Obama candidacy, not presidency mind you, candidacy, opposition is squelched by mass media down to those lawn signs. You think an Obama presidency will energize conservatives/traditionalists? There is no conservative/traditional Alinsky (and forbears) with a plan. The 2nd Amendment is defensive; we need an offensive.
If you’re looking for the battle, it’s already here. To me, putting the declared opposition in charge doesn’t help. We do not know what the future holds. As with any family, there may be crises that need to be met. Do we want to play this game with the worst in charge?
You know, Europe is already where we don’t want to be. While we here are dissecting conservative/traditional differences and maybe looking to make some sort of principled protest, the folks who want us to go there are making headway.
Whichever party wins we are heading further into the trend of a post-modern, transnational way of life. If there is any way to find a way to keep freedom it’s not by an “I’ll-vote-for-you-so-you-can-fail, then I can be a winner, ha-ha” plan of action. Don’t even ask. If you choose to abstain or make a third choice, that is all well and good, but it goes to underline that there is no cohesive opposition to those with a plan.
Strangely enough, I believe there is no cohesive opposition with a plan because those who oppose are individuals who want to remain individuals. What a conundrum.
Most important point I want to make; look back at history, it is NEVER the “best” time to vote in a potential tyrant.
P.S. I understand that the economy will further suffer. The left is ready for this.
M. Mason writes:
My vote will have to be for McCain/Palin, though I certainly understand if others feel that they must cast their ballot for write-in candidates. But if there is a convincing case that an Obama victory may prove to be a strategic political blunder for the Democrats at this point in time, then I believe your correspondent MGH has begun to make it. I agree with him that many are underestimating the full impact of the impending economic catastrophe which awaits this country and the next administration. The duplicitous, blame-shifting leftist messiah will, of course, denounce Republicans as being solely responsible for it, but an increasingly growing number of very worried Americans will quickly become impatient with mere accusatory rhetoric and are going to clamor for him as President to do something. And because Obama is a meddling socialist, he (along with his liberal economic advisors) will not allow the markets to self-correct in a healthy manner (which is necessary, though painful in the short-term), so every attempt he makes to try to “do something” will only make matters worse. After no more than a year of his manifest economic ineptitude, he will then “own” his long-term problem, and have to take the scorching political heat for it, along with a Democrat-controlled Congress.
And if that were not enough, the political and racial polarization that both he and his wife will engender and inflame in this country as their poisonous, radical black liberation theology fantasies continually ooze out of them on the national stage virtually guarantees that an Obama administration will be an embattled one practically from the day he takes office. In fact, I’d wager that he’ll likely prove to be a disappointment in some key respects even to those in his rapturous “amen corner” too. For referring back to economics again, the bottom line is that the left’s numinous, messianic lightworker isn’t going to be the boundless, redistributive economic savior that they’re longing for simply because he cannot. There will be too little money available for that. In actuality, what he’s going to be is the lap poodle of some of his largest campaign contributors—Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. Most of the really big bailout money both now and in the future from the Federal Reserve is going straight to them, along with certain other major banks, insurance companies and the shadow banking system worldwide in a desperate attempt to forestall an economic meltdown. It is their staggering, unbelievable financial losses that will be socialized.
Nevertheless, the above scenario notwithstanding, the biggest question remains: how much long-lasting damage to this country in other important ways will an Obama administration still be able do?
Tim W. writes:
I’ve been quietly thinking about this election for a while. It really disturbs me to see the adulation Obama is receiving. People literally don’t care that he associates with the likes of Wright & Ayers. A liberal friend of mine at work, whose intelligence I’ve always respected, went into a long diatribe yesterday “explaining” why Ayers’s activities shouldn’t be considered terrorism, since he was doing these things for a good cause (to end the Vietnam War and to bring about more equality within America). That actually frightened me, and I’m pretty cynical about the state of our nation. This man is an educated person who wouldn’t harm a fly, yet his obsessive support of Obama and liberalism has led him to rationalize terrorist bombings.
It was almost enough to make me vote for McCain. But I see a McCain victory as just four more years of moderate liberalism, which will lead to Obama or someone like him winning a landslide in 2012. I think our only hope is that Obama being elected now might wake people up. If McCain wins, he’ll be blamed for the bad economic times we’re sure to have in the coming years, and in 2012 we’ll elect a leftist government that is unstoppable. Maybe a President Obama now is the shock our nation needs. I don’t know that this is true, but we’re in a bad position here and it seems to be the best tactic. I may be wrong, of course.
I’ll write in Reagan on election day. I could never vote for Obama. I’d also like to add that I’ve come to really respect Sarah Palin as a person. If Obama had taken the media assault that she has endured with grace, he’d have melted down months ago.
Andrew E. writes:
I will be writing in Tom Tancredo. All the arguments for and against voting for McCain have, for me, distilled down to the simple idea that perhaps it’s time for a leftist to take the helm. I agree with the argument that McCain equals the death of conservatism. If Obama wins and governs as a reconciler then the Republicans will be well positioned for 2012. If Obama wins and governs as a leftist, then maybe it is time for another Revolution.
Laura W. writes:
Your commenters who are voting for McCain have made many good arguments. I wake up with dark forebodings every morning anyway, but Kristor has painted a very grim scenario for the future under Obama and I may not sleep at all unless I decide to vote for McCain. Even if these visions of horror do not come true, why take the slightest movement in that direction?
But, I still get hung up on this leftist rage. I can’t get around it. Where will it go? How do those who are voting for McCain resolve this question? What do they see as the outcome for all this raw emotion if Obama were to lose? Obama would raise millions for his next presidential bid in the weeks immediately following a loss.
(Please convey my thanks to Hannon for his confidence and assure him that if my large, very liberal and very articulate Irish-American family knew that even one person voted for me, they would quickly form a political action committee to prevent the slim possibility of even one more vote.)
Alan S. writes:
Auster has withdrawn the possibility of voting for Baldwin. It is between McCain and not voting. He is still undecided. What type of leader, less than one week before the most important election of our lifetime, can still be undecided. Take a stance.
LA replies:
LOL. Do I have to lead on every issue? VFR is not a political party, you know. I’m a searcher of truth. When I don’t know something, I ask about it, I think about it. And in this case I “led” by leading the discussion. It was in part my own openness to and interest in both sides of the argument that made this outstanding discussion possible.
Also, in this case, many people are torn between the horribleness of both options. Since a leader represents the concerns and views of the people he is leading, to represent with clarity that tortured situation in my own person and thoughts was not inconsistent with the function of leadership.
LA continues:
I have said all along that the pro-McCain versus anti-McCain issue is so difficult, involving imponderables of what may or may not happen in the future, that I do not presume to urge others how to vote on this. I’ve said all along that my position, that it would be better for McCain to lose, was only my personal sense of things, and that I was not sure that I was right about it.
If I lead, it is by dealing as honestly and truthfully with issues as I can.
In any case, it is still four days before Election Day. I will state my own vote by Sunday.
On another point, what is this business with millions of people voting before Election Day, even weeks before? This is not good. Other than the small number of people traveling or stationed overseas in the military, the country should vote together, on the same day. We should resist and reverse this trend toward post-modern election procedures. Election Day is a national ritual in which we should participate together.
Comments posted October 31, 9 p.m.
Bob Finch writes:
I’m in Florida, but the GOP can go to hell if it thinks that this conservative will set aside all the harm McCain has inflicted and tried to inflict upon the continuity of this nation simply because I fear and loathe The One. I’m requesting a write in ballot upon which I will write “present” in the presidential race. Then, I’ll vote for conservatives down ballot and, when in doubt, vote against all incumbents. I’ll have my six-year-old daughter with me when I vote. From what she has heard from me about this election, particularly my comments about these two insufficient bastards and their enablers, my voting for either pretender would make me a hypocrite. That’s just not the sort of example I’m willing to set for my child.
Bill Carpenter writes:
The poll has led to an outstanding discussion.
Here are my two cents:
I will vote for McCain/Palin because they unite under their banner the largest number of people who hold the fundamental faith in America that animates traditionalists. His 3,000 appointments will include moderates and conservatives, but relatively few liberals and leftists compared to Obama’s. They will be people who are either sympathetic to our faith in America, or who understand they are answerable to other people who are. Admitted that the Republican party is infected by liberalism, but there is a positive to having to attract a majority to your side. It forces you to develop your rhetoric in a way that touches ordinary people’s lives. Unfortunately, we currently have party leadership that tries to gain a majority by splitting the difference with the left instead of by leading from the center, which is traditionalist, sober, and forward-looking. (Not admitting the left-right dichotomy here.) That is normal for government, however, which is intrinsically mediocre and the mediocrity of which is the reason we stand for limited government.
Obama is carrying the flag for the Gnostic rebels who advocate “change” in every aspect of American life. Possibly some future traditionalists are supporting Obama because they think he stands for the American promise of liberty and equality. Hopefully they will mature into a realistic understanding of how those principles apply in the political arena. Assuredly, Obama is supported by those who are motivated by the desire to destroy American society as it is and has been. Obama’s 3,000 appointments will comprise both kinds, both of which have the potential to degrade American life and make the future rebirth of the American soul more painful and far off.
There is no good reason for a conservative to vote for Obama. Any positive effect of an Obama presidency is so speculative compared to the certain harm that voting for Obama is irrational. As for voting for a third party, it is clearly not yet time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs, even if it will someday be replaced by the Constitution Party. Let the Constitution Party elect lower level legislators in cities and states and in congress, then form a nucleus that will attract Republicans or cause the Republicans to come to the Constitution party. Then when liberalism is discredited in the eyes of the people, there will be a viable alternative. For now, McCain is what we have, even though we will have to exert ourselves continually to keep him from doing harm.
LA replies:
Mr. Carpenter’s argument focuses on the bad federal appointments Obama will make. But every president makes federal appointments, and every Democratic president will make lots of leftist federal appointments not unlike Obama’s.
So, by Mr. Carpenter’s reasoning, we must always vote for the Republican nominee, even if his Democratic opponent is not as bad as Obama. This weakens the case that Obama is uniquely bad and that therefore we must vote for a uniquely bad Republican to stop him.
However, Mr. Carpenter is more persuasive when he gets away from the specifics of federal appointees and makes a general point: “Any positive effect of an Obama presidency is so speculative compared to the certain harm that voting for Obama is irrational.”
Robert R. writes:
I voted for McCain several days ago, and I was one of those who vowed I wouldn’t vote for him because he was in the Gang of 14, among other things. But Obama is just too far to the left. As others have said, he may make structural changes that ensure Republicans can never win Congress of the Presidency again. I don’t want to be one of those who made that possible. And count on the MSM to disguise his failures or somehow turn the blame onto the Republicans.
E. from Florida writes:
At this late date, I have not yet decided for whom I will vote. Apparently, Bob Barr is the only third party candidate listed on our state ballot, and I won’t vote for him. I think write-ins are a waste, since they are never really tallied. That leaves McCain (Oy!). I’m presuming Obama will win and I hope he’ll be a disaster that will wake liberal (or other) whites up, but this hasn’t happened in the past 40 years, so, why this time?
Stewart W. writes:
Lawrence,
Mm….
Mm…
McCain.
Aaaaarrrrgghhhh!
When a colleague asked me, I couldn’t actually bring my mouth to speak his name, and I could barely type it in this e-mail, but there it is. In the final analysis, it came down to Obama’s combination of evil associates, downright Marxist beliefs, his actual record on the Second Amendment, the socialist Congress we will be facing, and the possibility of seeing a conflagration on the left should Obama lose.
A reader writes:
Ralph Nader.
His platform is far from perfect, but he addresses the issues of globalization without resorting to conspiracy theories. Also, I am somewhat environmentalist despite being a frequent reader of this site.
Here is the most impassioned pro-McCain argument so far.
Michael Hart, author of Understanding Human History, writes:
Obama will probably be elected on Tuesday; and next year a Democratic congress will pass (and Obama will sign) an amnesty bill for most of the illegal immigrants living here. No border fence will be built, and little attempt will be made to prevent more illegal immigrants from flooding into our country.
Yes, many whites will regret their votes for Obama and will against the Democrats in the future. However, those votes will be drowned out by the millions of new voters; and in case they are not, large-scale election fraud will cover any deficit for the Democrats.
Twenty years from now, when our country has been lost irretrievably, people will see that our last serious chance of preserving ourselves was the election of 2008. When our children or grandchildren ask “Why didn’t you vote against Obama?” we will hang our heads in shame and explain that we were uncomfortable with McCain’s lack of economic expertise, or a few foolish (although harmless) remarks by Sarah Palin, or the fact that her teenage daughter was pregnant.
Many persons on this thread are debating whether to vote for McCain, or Ron Paul, or Chuck Baldwin, or not at all. In fact, however, only one candidate has any chance of defeating Obama. Lincoln once said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth.” A McCain victory might not nobly save us, but an Obama victory will surely lose that last, best hope.
Laura W. replies:
Mr. Hart weakens his point by trivializing the case against McCain. I don’t think anyone at VFR ever said that anything Palin did or represented constituted the main reason for withholding support from McCain. His own stand on immigration and his desire to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, plus a host of other defections to liberalism, were the main reasons.
LA replies:
I was having the same thought. Does Mr. Hart want readers to think that all he’s taken in of the anti-McCain side is that they oppose McCain because of his lack of economic expertise—that that’s what all this anguished discussion is about? By ignoring and trivializing the other side’s profound concerns, Mr. Hart virtually compels them to dismiss his argument. If, instead, he showed some understanding of the McCain opponents’s issues, and then said that no matter how terrible McCain is, Obama would be far worse, then his guilt-based case for McCain would be more persuasive.
Ken Hechtman, VFR’s leftist Canadian reader who for some reason apparently can vote in the U.S., writes:
Not much need for me to put my two cents in to the poll, you already know who I’m voting for and why. But I’ll suggest this: save all the predictions—“President McCain will do this, President Obama will do that”—as a time capsule. Open it up in four years when you’ll be able to reality-check half of them one way or the other. It’ll be interesting to see who was right about what.
Hannon writes:
I’m so glad you said what you did in your last post about all Americans voting on the same day. I came to the same conclusion, independently of any media input, only recently. Unless a citizen is overseas or bed-ridden he should be required to vote in person on Election Day, with photo identification (no veils). Are there any pontifications by mainstream pundits on this issue?
Knowing from the last election the incompetence and/or confusion at my polling place I can only imagine what happens with mail-in ballots. I remember arguing with the volunteers on duty (in a friendly way) about the difference between “Independent” and “Non-partisan” and not getting anywhere. Still genuinely confused, I wrote to the Registrar’s office later and only then did I realize I had inadvertently signed onto the American Independent Party! I hear people regularly use “Independent” when they mean non-partisan, even on major tv news programs. Not only must we be vigilant politically but also logistically in this process. No wonder it turns many off to voting altogether.
Also, the electronic voting business stinks. Already one state has chucked that program and gone back to the dire risking of hanging chads (or is it chad plural, like “fish”?). I think our liberal society has become addicted to change and improvement without a thought or care about the actual state of things—they are terrified of a world that seems unchanging and these symbolisms reassure them of progress.
LA writes:
Laura W. wrote:
But, I still get hung up on this leftist rage. I can’t get around it. Where will it go? How do those who are voting for McCain resolve this question? What do they see as the outcome for all this raw emotion if Obama were to lose? Obama would raise millions for his next presidential bid in the weeks immediately following a loss.
Not only will the leftist insanity double if McCain is elected (which is not a major factor for me, but it’s something to be considered), but, as has been said before, having incurred this leftist rage, and also being guilty for having deprived America of the nonwhite messiah, McCain will very likely shift into SUPER DOOPER ULTRA McCAIN MODE, going over the top to ally himself with and please the left. Like LBJ replacing JFK, he will strive to be everything to America that Obama would have been. But whereas the Republicans and conservatives would have passionately opposed the real Obama, they will for the most part obediently follow the surrogate Obama, arguing that McCain must act like a surrogate Obama to appease the left and the independents, because if he doesn’t do that, the left will gain more political support and take over America and hand the country over to terrorists.
Remember the deadly dialectic of a liberal Republican president, which we’ve seen abundantly under Bush: the more left the leftist opposition gets, the more left the “conservative” president and his supporters get, situating themselves just to the right of the left. An example was Bush’s pathetically weak position on the Grutter case, just slightly to the right of the left. He supported the leftist goal of racial diversity, so long as it was not achieved on an explicitly racial basis. Then, when the left won the decision, which allowed racial diversity on an explicitly racial basis, Bush caved in instantly and completely and endorsed the decision, as though his previous opposition to explicitly race-conscious measures had never existed. My point is that McCain will be far worse in truckling to the left than Bush, and the Republicans will be inhibited in doing anything about it. By contrast, if Obama is president, there won’t be any inhibition on the conservative side.
Michael S. writes:
I’m voting for Nobama. That is, I’m pulling the lever (or flipping the switch, or whatever) for McCain, but I’m not voting “for” McCain as much as I am voting against Obama.
Despite the possible consequences you posit for an Obama victory, I just can’t quite stomach the idea sitting this one out, as I had considered doing.
I am ashamed to admit that I have always voted for Democrats in past. I sat out the 2004 election. This year I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
Not happy with this, and certainly not feeling good about it.
Some thoughts on Obama: Media Obama Bias
Mark P. writes:
I will be voting for McCain. Though I completely agree with you that McCain is a disaster and that he will do great harm to conservatism and the Republican Party, I simply do not think that an Obama win will lead to the resurgent conservatism that you expect. It would be nice to think that but I don’t believe it will happen.
The reason why such expectations won’t be met is that Obama fully intends to attack the “feedback loop” of the political system. He wants to go after talk radio, censor the Internet, purge any dissenting view from the airwaves and make sure that only a sanitized view of Obama’s America is broadcast. How are conservatives going to awake to the black-on-white crime, the four-year-long OJ acquittal sack dance, and other consciousness-raising events if we never hear about it because the opposition media has been shut down?
Granted, McCain may do the same thing, given that he is a liberal. But Obama must do it. The MSM fully expects a government “bailout” in exchange for their support of Obama. Obama must deliver by shutting down the media’s competition.
On other fronts, McCain’s war-mongering may be wasteful, but it has the silver lining of maintaining the military-industrial-security complex. The MIS complex houses probably the largest number of white, red-state conservatives of any federal workforce. When civilian life has radically degenerated and the government looks to some institution to restore order, the MIS complex will be at the top of the list.
M. Jose writes:
I noticed a lot of commenters did not know who is on the ballot in their state.
Here is a quick list of the status of each third-party/independent presidential ticket (including the minor minor parties as well as the big four) in each state. It might be good to post the link for the benefit of readers/commenters for whom this might be a deciding factor.
November 1
Dan R. writes:
In this election the issue is not the Republican Party or John McCain, but Barack Obama. Obama is the most radical candidate ever nominated by the Democrats, and, horrifyingly, possibly its most inspirational. He’s a radicalizing force who’s succeeded in making whites yearn for him, representing the deliverance of their dreams for a colorblind America. There is no telling for sure whether this will have staying power, but I’d be hard-pressed to bet against it. Should his programs fail you can be certain he will make the case that it is through no fault of his own—that his predecessor Republicans had eight years in which to screw things up—and, if anything, he will argue for more of what he undoubtedly will be offering: enlarged and barely limited government power. Obama has turned this into a threshold election, upgrading the stakes to a full-blown European-style social democracy in the United States. Yes, I know, we’re already too close already, but add in national health care and the taxation needed to support it, hate-speech codes necessary to a policy of unlimited immigration, and suddenly the days of Bushes look almost idyllic. John Kerry and Al Gore stood for many of the same things, but with a difference embodied in the compelling facts of Obama’s race and a pair of hack politicians. Will an Obama election spur a conservative resistance? Of course, to some extent it will, but from what I’ve been seeing lately conservative hopes are invested in Sarah Palin, and that is just pathetic. McCain is no answer to Obama—only the most realistic means of stopping him. For now. The election of either candidate will not make our job any easier. Whoever is elected will have to be fought, but the stakes are qualitatively higher with an Obama, who can institutionalize things that will be extremely difficult to undo. And so I will hold my nose and vote for John McCain.
LA replies:
In connection with Dan R.’s comment, one thing comes clear to me: the Vote-for-McCain argument is much simpler and easier to make than the Don’t-vote-for-McCain argument.
Pro-McCain argument: Obama is a radical leftist, he must be stopped, period.
Anti-McCain arguments: McCain will kill conservatism, McCain will move to the left unopposed by conservatives while, Obama will be passionately opposed by conservatives, etc.
The problem with the anti-McCain arguments is that they are speculative, since we don’t know what will happen under McCain. The advantage of the pro-McCain argument is that there is a core of unquestionable, no-brainer truth about it. While none of us knows what Obama will actually do as president, we do know for a fact that his whole life has been that of a radical leftist immersed in a leftwing anti-American environment and surrounded by leftwing anti-American associates. However terrible McCain may be, these FACTS about Obama put him off the chart as far as the presidency is concerned. Of course, a further argument could be made (I’ve made it a hundred times) that notwithstanding these disqualifying facts about Obama, the total effect of his presidency may be less damaging than a McCain presidency. But, again, that argument consists of speculation about possible future events. We do not know what WILL happen in the future. We do know that Obama IS a leftist and that his election would signal a radical move of America to the left. As I’ve said before, my gut instinct is to have it out. But that gut instinct may be trumped by the rational recognition of the indisputable harm an Obama election would cause.
Of course, Obama could well be elected, and might have been elected even if every conservative in America including me had devoted all our efforts to supporting McCain. And if Obama is elected, if that unimaginable event becomes actual, then the pro-McCainites may find useful and helpful the arguments that have been advanced at this site showing why an Obama presidency may not be as harmful as they think, may, in fact, open up hopeful opportunities undreamed of in the event of a McCain election.
Brent B. writes:
As a native of Pensacola FL, I have had the opportunity to hear Rev. Baldwin for many many years (he has had a radio show here locally since the 1980s). Unfortunately I’ve heard a little too much from him that conflicts with my personal view of government to support him in 2008.
After years of being registered No Party Preference in FL, my wife and I registered GOP in time to vote in the Primary so we could both cast a ballot for Dr. Ron Paul. While I don’t agree with him on every issue, the most important ones (reduced Federal government, repeal of Patriot Act and other intrusions into citizens’ rights, limited foreign intervention, limits to immigration, reduce influence of Fed Reserve, etc.) represented in my mind the last, best chance for a major party candidate who represented our personal beliefs. Sadly, he never had much of a chance, and his decision not to pursue independent candidacy for POTUS removed him from our potential choices.
I never considered voting for either major party candidate, as I truly feel that both will lead this nation-state further down the path of collapse, albeit along slightly different paths. So, after careful consideration of the remaining alternatives, both my wife and I will be marking our ballot for Alan Keyes of the American Independent Party, as his stands on the above issues are closer to our own than anyone else on the FL ballot.
Thanks again for the insight and enlightenment you have provided me over the past few years. I am truly grateful that you continue to provide support for traditional conservatives like myself, from an informed and thoughtful perspective. Keep up the excellent work!
November 1-2
Paul K. writes:
I have not yet decided which third-party candidate I will support, but it will probably be Baldwin.
As much as I oppose Obama, I think his defeat would do us as much harm as his victory. It would be interpreted as an outrage, comparable to the assassination of Martin Luther King, only this time all of conservative America will have united to pull the trigger. This would be fine if we were in a battle of ideas, in which a McCain victory meant a victory for a traditional Americanism, but of course it does not. McCain has never articulated a coherent traditional thought. A President McCain will fall all over himself to out-Obama Obama, to prove to the left that he is not a racist.
There is an element of the electorate that lays the blame for all national problems at the foot of the president. This element—which swings elections, unfortunately—does not concern itself with the role of the Congress. Clinton takes credit for balancing the budget, when he had no inclination to do so until his hand was forced by House Republicans. Because Bush pushed an unpopular immigration bill, the House Republicans who blocked it got no credit. And thus, though the current Congress is at record low approval ratings, the Democrats will be reelected with an increased majority, thanks largely to the unpopularity of Bush.
The election of a reflexively liberal McCain, along with an overwhelmingly Democrat House and Senate, may be the worst of all possible outcomes. He’ll provide cover for the Democrats’ agenda, and, if the people are unhappy with the results, will ensure that Republicans get a large share of the blame. Better that Obama gets in, the Democrats start showing their true colors, and a chastened Republican Party gets its act together and starts regaining control of the Congress in the mid-terms. I don’t think The One is going to wear very well.
An Obama victory may give us a stronger Republican Party in two years. I’m afraid a McCain victory most certainly will not.
Van Wijk writes:
I will vote for Chuck Baldwin.
The Republican Party exists to be a vehicle for conservatism. If it ceases to be such a vehicle, it deserves to be crushed.
The election of John McCain will legitimize neocon rule. Bush only beat Kerry in ‘04 because Kerry is an empty shell. This election is the real trial for neoconservatism. Electing McCain because Obama is so much worse is a leap of faith; what indications are there that the next Democratic candidate will be less leftist? And the one after that? And after that? Electing McCain will, however, do irreparable damage to conservatism, and then what will America be? Is an America without genuine conservatism something worth fighting for? Our principles and culture are more important than our republic. As long as our people endure as a people, America cannot really die.
Let me reiterate that I do not have much hope for the continued existence of the United States of America. Our best case scenario is an Obama victory with the Constitution Party having obtained a substantial portion of votes. These votes could have been cast for the Republicans, and they’ll know it. Perhaps then America can be salvaged. Otherwise, we must each of us prepare for war. Anne said that this is the battle. She ain’t seen nothin’ yet. This is emphatically not the battle. Revolution and civil war are so far in our past that they have become academic. Americans, even those on our own side, have become soft and decadent. But our own crucible awaits. Someday we will see just how far we are willing to go to preserve our heritage. Better it be now while we are still numerous. Better have the war now rather than deed it to the next generation.
The longer we put off “having it out” with the left, the more and more likely it is that our country will become our oubliette.
Clark Coleman writes:
I think part of the antipathy toward McCain is well deserved on his part, due to his past actions towards fellow Republicans while he courted the liberal media and sought its approval for his “maverick” image. But I also think that part of the antipathy is the usual pattern of reacting more strongly towards those we feel have betrayed us. The insider gets stronger criticism than the outsider. If I hear Rush Limbaugh utter some unconservative inanity on the air, I get mad and feel like calling his show. If I heard it from a liberal or “moderate,” it would only be what I expected and would not stir me up at all. We seek to keep our own group pure, because we control that group to some extent and don’t control the other group. Commentators on NPR say things all the time that I disagree with, but not with any particular anger. When John McCain, or Lindsay Graham, or Arlen Specter, get on the air and say something liberal, I feel immediate anger. But they are far less liberal than anyone the Democrats would ever nominate. As bad as he is, Arlen Specter is no doubt more conservative than even the more “moderate” Democrats such as Carter and Clinton. I think ratings from conservative and liberal groups would bear this out. Specter is far more conservative than Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, or Mondale, yet to me he is just another RINO turncoat.
Leaving emotions aside, and looking more objectively at what McCain and Obama are actually likely to do, I don’t think there is any comparison between them. But there is always the emotional trap of being only half outraged at Obama’s leftism, with the unspoken attitude being, “That’s what I expect out of the likes of him,” and being doubly outraged at everything bad about McCain.
James W. writes:
The voters in this poll represent a high level of political interest and application. They also inadvertently point out the reason McCain will probably get clobbered Tuesday—no one here is a partisan for McCain. His very nomination after eight years of Bush applies the maxim that we are dismayed when even disaster does not cure us of our faults.
If one term of Obama does not, we are incurable.
Bill Carpenter writes:
It’s true, conservatives almost always should vote for the GOP because the GOP candidate will almost always be better than the Democrats. But between elections, conservatives need to advance and promote conservative principles in the party and expose and expel liberal principles in the party to get the best possible candidates to vote for. But parties are a tool, not an end in themselves, though they can be important in the layercake of loyalties in which we have our being; they are not eternal. Building up a party dedicated to the truth as we know it, outside the GOP, is a worthy endeavor. Whether it leads to an improved GOP or becomes in time the main vehicle of a revived American politics will be unveiled in time.
Jack S. writes:
These posts bring to mind a very important point that both touch on tangentially. We are living through the decline of the American empire and of Western Civilization. This civilizational decline might take many decades or even centuries as it did for the Roman empire or it can all come crashing down in a few years as it did for the South Africans. The choice is between living out our lives and perhaps our children’s lives in relative peace, or enduring chaos and havoc right here, right now.
I may be wrong, this may not be the end. There have been other times when everything seemed lost and the West made a comeback. Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution, the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848, the Great Depression, the darkest days of World War II were all dark points in history that may have seemed like the end of the world to those who lived through them. Yet the West survived. On the other hand, the demographic changes and third world invasions of the civilized world makes it feel like this is a different kind of calamity.
That’s why I disagree with your points that an Obama victory will galvanize conservative opposition. The most recent example of a conservative backlash has brought us where we are now. After two years of Clintonian outrages the Republicans won the House. The remainder of the Clinton administration really wasn’t that bad in hindsight, especially compared to Bush. Of course you could argue that that victory in ‘94 enabled Clinton’s re-election in ‘96 against a corpse-like Dole. And of course the compassionate conservative that followed Clinton paved the way for Obama and his mindless adherents. Back in ‘94, the third world invasion hadn’t progressed nearly as far as it has today. There is no guarantee that there will be enough white tax-paying conservatives left for an anti-Obama backlash to result in electoral success. [LA replies: Your point seems to be that things keep leading to their opposite. I don’t know how this backs up your idea that an Obama victory would not galvanize conservative opposition.]
Rich T. writes:
One reason I read this site is that I often learn something. I did not know that Chuck Baldwin is a 9/11 truther. Even if it isn’t one his top issues, and even if he wasn’t engaging in magical thinking on energy issues, that would disqualify him in my eyes.
There is one issue that suggests moving to the far left or right. As William Pfaff puts it in his most recent column:
“The fundamental question that should be put to the candidates is whether they are committed to a program of continuing American unilateral military and political interventions in the Muslim world intended to make despotic and ‘failed’ states into democracies on good terms with the United States. They undoubtedly would both say yes.”
However, I think greater events are going to overtake us and the Afghan adventure abandoned in the face of more pressing matters and rising costs that we can no longer afford.
I’m glad that Senator McCain is so aggressive in pushing nuclear power. However, as a number of Republican colleagues who know him well have noted, he is impulsive with an explosive temper and so is temperamentally unsuited for the job. He has run his campaign like the craps player he is, casting caution to the wind and putting everything on a throw of the dice. The Palin choice, someone he barely knew or vetted, is an example.
Mr. Nader has more substance and integrity than all the other candidates put together. On economic issues he is not a traditional leftist, but rather a capitalist reformer who owns a large personal stock portfolio. I particularly like his ideas about doing away with the legal fiction that corporations are individuals (an assertion that would have astonished the founding fathers) and for undertaking major reform of stockholder governance so that CEO’s aren’t rewarded when they have run their companies into the ground. However, he is opposed to nuclear power and so is engaging in the magical thinking of the left—that diffuse and intermittent solar and wind power will be sufficient, in themselves, to power an industrial civilization. The magical thinking of the right on energy issues is the belief that we can just drill our way out of the problem; magical thinking that Pastor Baldwin takes to the extreme of claiming that America has enough oil to power our way of life for a century or more, a geologically absurd claim.
Senator Obama, alone of the available candidates, seems to have a realistic take on energy issues. He understands that we are facing serious supply constraints, and that a country that uses a quarter of the global supply of oil but has only 3% of global oil reserves isn’t going to drill its way out of the problem. I was disappointed that he did not mention nuclear in his infomercial, but he has to keep his base consolidated, and nuclear is still on the table according to his white papers.
To a certain extent, we are buying a pig in a poke with Senator Obama. He has run his campaign like the serious poker player he is, staying unruffled, keeping his cards close to his vest and knowing when to bluff. I think it’s highly likely he’ll turn out like JFK, another relatively inexperienced young senator who gave great speeches and had a mixed record of achievements. Unlike Mr. Auster’s opinion, my reading of his background tells me that the greatest influence on Obama’s thinking as an educated adult isn’t Alinsky, Ayers or the radical black poet that was his grandpa’s friend, but Judge Richard Posner. One could do much worse. So I’ll cast my vote for Obama on Tuesday.
I think the Republic is resilient. Mr. Bush has shown that even a very bad president is limited in the damage he can do. But not having the flow of high quality energy necessary to run and grow an industrial society will damage the Republic in ways most of us are not aware of or are willing to admit.
November 2
Anna writes:
I have a two-fold continuation to my earlier comments and they are not as in-depth, politically, as those I so appreciate reading at this site. First are further thoughts on the election; second a personal story on the turmoil of the choice and the election process.
This election is being so strongly influenced by the left in TV and print that its effects may not be sufficiently realized by those who turn to alternate sources. Some folks I know, neutral to politics, feel they have educated themselves by watching the news and reading the paper. Others, watching the economy slip, are left with the simple economics of their own situation and what they hear and read. Other still, read, watch, talk and are perplexed.
Here are examples of the magic of TV and print.
“Joe the Plumber” is virulently vetted by the media and every possible piece of information is made to sound negative, Obama is not.
You mentioned the (quote is me) “Gee, I didn’t know about my illegal alien aunt living in subsidized housing in Boston. The $260 she gave my campaign will be returned.” There’s the years at Columbia where no one seems to remember him. Mr. Personality? Then there are his acknowledged, dis-acknowledged, un-acknowledged associations.
One that gets my attention is George Soros. There he is seated in that picture with Obama next to him on the stairway at that NY fundraiser. I remembered him vaguely as the man who earned the sobriquet “Man Who Broke The Bank of England.” I learned he is also famed as having a finger in creating the Asian financial crisis.
Now a minor in economics does not give me the credentials to make the following statement, yet I will: The timing of an economic crisis can have a great impact on a US presidential election.
My second thought, and an important part of thinking through this election, is a personal story. My son-in-law recently studied like heck to take his citizenship exam. Say, “Give me liberty or give me death” and he says Patrick Henry. From the moment he passed the exam he became known in our family as “Mr. Citizen.” There was celebration on the day he took the oath and he immediately registered to vote.
Now he is facing the same turmoil we have witnessed here. “What if I make the wrong choice?” One comment he made stayed with me—“If it’s wrong, we can change it in four years; in other countries the vote is forever.” At one point he joked, “You vote for me.” I gave a loud “No,” then suddenly realized our voting system would easily allow me to do that.
When I go to vote I need no ID and they really don’t want to see my voter’s card (which the instructions say I should detach, fold and carry in my wallet). All I need to do is give my name and address. In an egotistical sort of way I’m disappointed the system doesn’t want to verify my proud eligibility.
Voting has come from being a landowner to just giving a name and address? How is this possible?
LA replies:
And now, according to a federal judge, the address can be a park bench. A homeless bum voting is to voting what Obama is to a presidential candidacy and the presidency: something illegitimate, outside the system (e.g. twenty years in that disgraceful church), yet now allowed.
November 2, 11 p.m
Ilion Troas (a.k.a. Troy Troy) writes:
“It’s notable that for all the powerful arguments of the McCain voters, the non-McCain voters, that is, those who think McCain is so terrible that they would in effect let Obama become president rather than vote for McCain, outnumber the McCain voters by over 50 percent.”
1) I much doubt that more than a handfull of potential votes were changed, either way, by the arguments presented.
2) While I quite understand the refusal to vote for McCain—I toyed with it myself—the fact remains that those are the two choices before us.
2a) Therefore a refusal to vote for McCain has the effect of strengthening Obama’s total vote. [LA replies: no, it does not. It does not add votes to Obama. It has the effect of giving McCain fewer votes than he might otherwise have gotten.]
2b) Should Obama win, we will be hearing forever about his “mandate”—and the Dems will surely act on the assertion that his election is “proof” that The People no longer want our constitutional republic.
3) Should Obama win, and should the Democrats go crazy—as one rationally expects they will—are these purity conservatives going to have the descency and honesty to acknowledge their own part in bringing us to that pass?
LA replies:
I don’t see how Obama gets a mandate from people who did not vote for him.
As Laura W. said in the first thread:
I don’t believe voters who decline to support McCain would share in any blame for Obama’s eventual actions. If Obama is destructive, he and the people who supported him are responsible, not those of us who never voted for him and never supported him. It’s neurotic to take on guilt that isn’t justified. After next Tuesday, we can be free to work for the future.
Pat F. writes:
I realize that this is coming in after the deadline but I felt obligated to send it anyway. I will be voting for ALAN KEYES. Reasons?
1) I long ago rejected the idea that I must only vote for a candidate who “has a chance to win” (ie., one from either of the two dominant parties). The lesser of two evils is still evil and convincing the American voting public that they must vote for only a Democrat or Republican is one of the great tactical triumphs of liberalism in its conquest of this country, in my opinion. Tell ‘em they only have two choices and then don’t really give them any choices at all…which is exactly where we stand today.
2) Mr. Keyes comes far and away closest to holding the same political views that I do. When all is said and done I have to look myself in the mirror every morning and I refuse to face myself in that mirror knowing that I am even partly responsible for electing something like an Obama or McCain (or Bush). No matter how bad things get at least I know that I was true to my values and had no hand in handing over my country to traitors. I can’t do much to stop the liberal conquest but at least I’ll still have my self respect (and that of my children hopefully…).
LA replies:
That has certainly been my approach in the last three presidential elections. I voted for third-party or write-in candidates who represented my principles more or less, rather than for Republican candidates who did not. But this year is different, because of the unprecedented leftism of the Democratic candidate and the existential threat to America that Obama and the leftist Congress may pose.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2008 09:09 PM | Send
|